Facts
The petitioner was granted a quarry lease for Black trap mineral in Kutch for ten years, effective from 29.08.2009
Source reference: p. 2Following the extension of minor mineral leases in Gujarat until 31.03.2030, the petitioner applied for renewal on 08.09.2017
Source reference: p. 2On 11.03.2019, respondent authorities issued a notice demanding payment details for the District Mineral Foundation (DMF), TCS, and annual forms
Source reference: p. 3On 27.06.2019, the Collector cancelled the lease for non-compliance with lease conditions without providing a personal hearing
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner cited personal tragedies (death of his son and his mother’s illness) for the subsequent 2,240-day delay in filing a Revision Application, which was eventually filed in 2025
Source reference: p. 3-4The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the cancellation order or an expedited hearing of the pending revision
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.06.2019 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice
Source reference: p. 4-52. Whether the respondent Revisional Authority should be directed to dispose of the petitioner’s pending Revision Application in a time-bound manner
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to issue writs
Source reference: p. 1Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017
Source reference: p. 2Principle of Natural Justice—specifically the right to a fair hearing and the requirement for administrative authorities to pass reasoned orders before depriving a party of their livelihood
Source reference: p. 5-6Reasoning
The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the cancellation order was an ex-parte decision issued without providing a calculation of the dues or a reasonable opportunity to be heard
Source reference: p. 4While the petitioner acknowledged a significant delay of 2,240 days in filing the revision, he provided justifications involving the COVID-19 pandemic and family bereavement
Source reference: p. 3The Court observed that since the lease was the petitioner's sole source of livelihood and significant investment had been made, a sympathetic view was warranted
Source reference: p. 5Instead of quashing the order directly, the Court focused on the procedural remedy already initiated by the petitioner (the Revision Application), emphasizing that the authority must consider the petitioner’s compliance and assigned reasons behind the alleged breach
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Revisional Authority was ordered to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to consider all contentions, including evidence of payments made
The Court did not quash the original order but directed the Revisional Authority to decide Revision Application No. R-720/KUTCH within six months, specifically by 30.11.2026
Source reference: p. 6The petition was disposed of with a direction to the authority to act in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
KANTILAL @ KANTIBHAI MEGHJIBHAI SORATHIOYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in